Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

[DavidPalm]

First, please let’s set aside your ridiculous argument that a certain amount of exegesis is necessary in magisterial texts. What magisterial text that says that a requisite amount of exegesis must be present in a magisterial text or else its application of Scripture isn’t authoritative, normative, and in fact itself a guide to Catholic exegesis? None of the Fathers ever did any scriptural exegesis on geocentrism, yet that hasn’t given you any pause in asserting that geocentrism is “taught by the Church.”

The fathers of Vatican I, under the encouragement of Bl. Pius IX (according to Fr. Denis Fahey), signed off on a document which obviously draws upon Rom 11:28. It is speaking specifically of Jews who have not yet accepted Jesus as Messiah. It says of them that “they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers”, applying to non-believing Jews the very sentence from Rom 11:28 that you say only applies to Jews who have accepted Christ. And let’s not forget that in your “critique” of our article in Lay Witness, you actually agreed with us that the fathers of Vatican I interpreted the “beloved” and the “enemies” in Romans 11:28 to be the exact same group of people.

Now, Nostra Aetate 4 is also speaking of the Jews of today, those who have not yet accepted the Gospel. Of them it says “Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain manent, in the present tense] very dear to God, for the sake of the Patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice vocatio = calling] he made.” The “beloved” of Rom 11:28 are non-believing Jews, according to the Magisterium.

Lumen Gentium 16 makes this even clearer. Notice how section 16 starts:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways. There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9 :4-5): in view of the divine choice electionem = election], they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29).

Again the “beloved” of Rom 11:28 is applied by the Magisterium to “those [Jews] who have not yet received the Gospel”, as contrasted with members of the New Covenant elect (the People of God). So your personal interpretation of Rom 11:28 runs contrary to use of Rom 11:28 by the Magisterium.

In order for your interpretation to stand you would need to have another passage from the New Testament that refers “election” to the Jews as Jews, or one that shows that the Jews are “beloved” simply because they are Jews.

Not true. All I would have to have is a teaching of the Church’s Magisterium that does so, which I do. More than one, in fact. We’re not Sola Scriptura Protestants.

We can also add into the mix that John Paul II said of modern, unbaptized Jews that, “it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.”

Let’s remember too that CCC 1963 refers to “the chosen people” in the present tense as distinct from Christians; therefore, it is plain that it is referring the Jewish people of today. This is also confirmed by the fact that on every other occasion in which Catechism uses the phrase “the chosen people” it is referring to the Jewish people (see 60, 288, 441, 576, 751, 1081, 1150, 1539, 1716, and 1819.)

And let’s not forget that the promise of a future special conversion of the Jews to Christ marks them out as special as well. No other group is given such a promise in Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers. This doctrine is taught by dozens of Fathers and Doctors of the Church and has been reiterated again in the CCC (par. 674). Fr. Denis Fahey himself—after surveying the weight of the witnesses for this belief through Church history—says, “The conversion of the Jewish people to the true Supernatural Messias is, therefore, certain . . .”

You’ve gone to great extremes to downplay and deny this doctrine, even to the point of adopting openly Protestant principles and tactics. In stark contrast, with only two Fathers who mention that the Antichrist might come from the Jews, you were willing to declare that “the Fathers have much to say” about it and that “Catholic tradition…has unofficially declared that the future Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction” (whatever “unofficially declared” means). For further documentation see my article The Ongoing Role of the Jews in Salvation History.

Can you see understand a bit more now as to why we have described your approach to this as a “Theology of Prejudice”?

So, please present the texts from the Magisterium of the Church that use the terms “supersessionism” and “revoked” or acknowledge that you’re use of these terms is inappropriate and unjustified. Please also present the texts from the Magisterium of the Church that support your private interpretation of all of the biblical texts you’ve cited here or openly acknowledge that you can’t do so. Then, last, please present the texts from the Magisterium of the Church that support your charges of heresy against us and Bishop Rhoades, according to your own publicly stated standards, or openly acknowledge that you can’t do so. It’s time to stop taking a Protestant approach to these issues and to stop shirking your burden of proof. Magisterial texts only please.

We’ve spent a great deal of time defending ourselves and Bishop Rhoades from your baseless accusations of heresy. It’s time for you to answer some questions about your own publicly stated positions.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Mr. Palm, are you telling us the Mosaic covenant isn’t superseded because you can’t find the word “supersessionism” in a Catholic document??

You were already given the word “superseded” from the Romans Catechism, but you tried to parse that out of existence. You were given Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9 which use specific Greek words as strong as supersede but you complain that they are only synonyms. When synonyms of superseded (e.g., “abolished”) are used in Catholic documents (such as Pius XII’s “Mystici Corporis”) and the Fathers (e.g., “annulled” “abrogated”) you won’t accept them. When the Council of Trent uses the word “abrogated” you downplay it. When asked to provide some evidence that Catholics shouldn’t use supersessionism, you refer us to a book written by a Protestant (Vlach) who admits that he believes national Israel today is favored by God.

Your argument that “revoked” is different than “abrogated” or “abolished” is fallacious. You cannot redefine the English language to win an argument. Here is the way normal people use these words (notice how “abrogate” and “abolish” are used to define “revoked.”

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary:

Revoke: To bring or call back; to annul by recalling or taking back; rescind, cancel, repeal, retract; 2. revoke indicates an annulling or abrogating.

Abrogate: to abolish by authoritative, official or fermal action; annul, repeal; to put an end to; do away with; set aside.

Abolish: to do away with wholly; annul; to destroy completely.

The World Book Dictionary:

Revoke: to take back; repeal; cancel; withdraw

Supersede: to take the place of; cause to be set aside; displace; replace;

You write: “Revoked” carries an additional negative nuance that the actual terms the Church has used – such as abolished and abrogated – do not. Words like “abolished” and “abrogated” keep the focus on the particular item being “abolished” or “abrogated” without necessarily implying anything about the holder of the item. Conversely, “revoked” also tends also to imply a rebuke of the holder of the item.

Who in the world do you have as an authority on the English language to support your novel definition? Revoked does not carry a “rebuke of the holder.” It is a legal term just like “abolished”, “abrogated” or “superseded.”

As for your contention about magisterial texts, it is likewise specious. When a magisterial text merely repeats or reiterates a scriptural passage without explaining the scriptural passage, it is of no help. Your continued used of Lumen Gentium (“in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers”) to support your position is farcical. You are simply reading into the passage what you want to see. Lumen Gentium does not explain what it means, and therefore it is not useable in this argument.

You claim that I say “Rom 11:28 that you say only applies to Jews who have accepted Christ.” No I don’t. I said that the Jews, at large, are “beloved,” but only because they are given a chance to become saved, to become “the elect.” THAT was God’s irrevocable promise to Abraham. Unfortunately, you want to make more of this than St. Paul did.

You say that “Nostra Aetate 4 is also speaking of the Jews of today, those who have not yet accepted the Gospel.” You won’t get an argument from me. The problem is not Nostra Aetate. It’s you and your interpretation of Nostra Aetate. Nostra Aetate doesn’t say anymore than what St. Paul said, but you do. If I remember correctly, you and Forrest created six applications or stipulations about how we should regard the Jews based on these texts, but, of course, not a one of them is taught officially by the Church, Scripture or Tradition.

By the way, all the quotes you have cited from Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI are unofficial and therefore merely his opinion. On the issue of the Jews he says many contradictory things. His recent book, Jesus of Nazareth, is full of misstatements (e.g, his claim that “let their blood be upon us and our children” is a mistake by Matthew; his claim that we need not preach the Gospel to the Jews, etc). So I don’t consider him an authority on the issue unless he wants to speak officially.

You write: “We can also add into the mix that John Paul II said of modern, unbaptized Jews that, ‘it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.’”

But John Paul II is saying nothing more than what St. Paul said, but St. Paul said what he said in the context of salvation only, not because he thought the Jews as Jews were a special people because of some left over promises and covenants in the OT God didn’t fulfill yet (as Roy Schoeman believes, and apparently you and Forrest believe).

You write: “Let’s remember too that CCC 1963 refers to “the chosen people” in the present tense as distinct from Christians; therefore, it is plain that it is referring the Jewish people of today. This is also confirmed by the fact that on every other occasion in which Catechism uses the phrase “the chosen people” it is referring to the Jewish people (see 60, 288, 441, 576, 751, 1081, 1150, 1539, 1716, and 1819.)”

Granted, but the problem is not with the catechism. It’s with you and what you make of these references.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Mr. Palm, you write: “And let’s not forget that the promise of a future special conversion of the Jews to Christ marks them out as special as well. No other group is given such a promise in Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers. This doctrine is taught by dozens of Fathers and Doctors of the Church and has been reiterated again in the CCC (par. 674). Fr. Denis Fahey himself—after surveying the weight of the witnesses for this belief through Church history—says, “The conversion of the Jewish people to the true Supernatural Messias is, therefore, certain . . .”

Unfortunately for you, it is not Catholic dogma and it is not taught in CCC 674. Once again, you read into a given text what you want to see. CCC 674 merely says “The ‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of ‘the full number of Gentiles…” CCC 674 doesn’t define what it means by “full inclusion of the Jews.” It could easily refer to all the Jews from Abraham to Christ’s second coming that become saved, not a large group of Jews just before Jesus returns. Nowhere does the CCC teach that there will be an en masse conversion of Jews before Christ returns. As for the Fathers and medievals, there is no firm consensus on the issue, besides the fact that the “en masse conversion of Jews” idea originated with the Premillennial eschatology that the Church rejected at the Council of Ephesus. In fact, we recently found a number of them who say that the Jews will remain unrepentant until the end of time (e.g., Chrysostom, Agobard, Bruno, Juliana of Norwich, Liguori, and Popes Gregory the Great, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Martin V).

You write: “Can you see understand a bit more now as to why we have described your approach to this as a ‘Theology of Prejudice’”?

This is just another example of your infamous demagoguery. The larger problem is your reading into Church documents what you want to see; your redefining of basic English words to suit your own agenda; and your ignoring of basic Scripture texts just because they have no official Catholic commentary.

Mr. Palm, a word of warning. If you want to continue this dialogue, then you need to stop the name-calling, the caricatures, the accusations, the digging up things from the past that are argumentative, which are obviously done in an effort to draw prejudice against me. I am simply not going to put up with it any longer. If you don’t stop, this will be the last dialogue I have with you.

 

[YanniP]

Mr. Palm:
It is a better approach to these issues to acknowledge, as you did, that what you are proposing is “still being sifted and considered”. Thank you for that.

Still, with that concession, your insistence and continued reliance on Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate simply do support your entire position. Also your “6” evidences for “an abiding love” simply beg the question, let alone are only your musings. Again, assuming you are correct on the en masse conversion, which is simply opinion, the Church has also never spoken as to “why” the remnant exists as it does or why an en masse conversion would occur leaving centuries of unconverted, condemned souls – is that a positive or a negative? Ultimately unique, yes, but you do not have support to go as far as you do. I don’t see a need to rehash the support, for which I believe Mr. Sungenis has already pointed out quite accurately.

What I would like to spend time exploring though, as it now has become obvious to me, is that you have a clear prejudice for promoting a positive continuation of the mosaic covenant, in that it is “not just ‘done for’”. I don’t believe you can even consider that the Mercy and Love God shows the Jews after their breach is that he so graciously continues to offer them a chance of salvation. It must be more for you. Yet, you do not define it. Can you define this “more” that specifically exists? Is it Grace? Is it a continued working of the Spirit through the OT? What do you mean?

Much of your position revolves around a misconception of what was really fulfilled, and the consequence of the fulfillment. The people of Israel as a unit, as the Chosen of the OT, prefigured Christ. This type was then completely fulfilled, as all the other messianic types, ceremonial, etc. Once fulfilled, as completely as Christ fulfilled the types, there is no longer a prefigurement – no more type, no more shadow. Only the light now exists. That is the exact reason why the Council of Florence and Pope Benedict IVX in Ex Quo were so harsh in condemning any old precept which foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah. St. Thomas and St. Augustine were equally clear:

“Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: “It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation.” Summa Theologica, I II Q 103, 4

This is true of any type foreshadowing Christ. See, Mr. Palm, we all can agree that because all of the prophecies which assured physical Israel of eternal blessings were fulfilled in the Messiah, fulfilled differently than Israel in her blindness had imagined, Israel rejected her inheritance. God took the vineyard and gave it to the Gentiles, a New Israel.

Paradoxically, as we find so often in God’s plan, this New Israel was the Israel that existed from the beginning, the one fulfilled in Christ. This was the New Israel, the Christianity, of Abraham. Whether there is a remnant of the “past Chosen” now accepting this new Messianic Kingdom of grace throughout time, or whether these “past Chosen” will en masse accept Christ near the second coming is irrelevant for this discussion in my view. The important fact is the transfer, and singularity, of the word and concept of “chosen”. We do not currently have chosen becoming part of the Chosen. You have past-chosen becoming part of the Chosen.

Unless you admit that your whole premise is, as I stated from the beginning, simply that God can temporally deal with a nation or group of people, even uniquely, as we all admit the remaining “unique” role of Jews, and that any blessing or positive special relationship is based upon the continued offer of salvation through the Abrahamic Covenant, specifically through Jesus Christ, to all men, then you are insinuating and instigating a belief in two “chosen” groups. Although you do go a good distance to declare the non-salvific nature of the relationship that exists, you simply do not see the impropriety in your implications and insinuations that this continuing unique dealing is a positive or, as you say, a “role in God’s design for man’s salvation”. The past-chosen play no “role”, implying causation, in “man’s salvation”.

These type of statements support and give credence to those advocating more than what I am assuming you wish to advocate. Christ does not have two brides Mr. Palm, as you know, but your attempt to create an additional “chosen” beyond what has been usurped by the Church is tantamount to bringing that second bride to the wedding. Your title “All in the Family: Christians, Jews, and God” and your statements “are the Jewish people still “chosen”, maintaining a special relationship with God? . . . Yes”, and your incessant attempt to create a positive out of a negative is doing more harm than good.

 

[YanniP]

Your most revealing statement was in your objection to Mr. Sungenis’ usage of the word “revoked”. You stated:

““Revoked” carries an additional negative nuance . . . Conversely, “revoked” also tends also to imply a rebuke of the holder of the item. . . Conversely, if I say that someone’s license has been “revoked”, that naturally tends to imply that the license holder has done something wrong and that is why the license has been taken away.”

Do you really find that analogous? Do you really believe that the “licensee” here was not to blame for the “revocation”? Is it wrong to imply that the “license holder” has done something wrong to have the “license” taken away? In your view, why was the Old Covenant abrogated and superseded?

Yes, God loves the Jews, but not as Jews, as you have stated, but because of the Incarnation, because they individually reflect the same potentiality for fulfilling their Imago Dei. That fulfillment is offered to them, despite their rejection, because of God’s eternal Promise and Fulfillment in Christ Jesus.

As for your question related to Mr. Sungenis, are you really taking the “But he’s doing something worse!” defense? We’re focusing on your problematic essays, Mr. Palm. You are the one taking theological positions and claiming they are Magisterial and taught by the Church, and we are exploring the correctness of your representations. I have seen nothing but charitable discussion from Mr. Sungenis. Please stay on topic.

Thank you for your time, and for answering my above questions.

 

[YanniP]

In Post 62 - Correction - “your insistence and continued reliance on Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate simply do NOT support your entire position.”

 

[SwissGuard25]

1 Timothy 2:4-6

4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

 

[robindenver]

Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Messiah for everyone, and that salvation from the wages of sin is only through acceptance of Him as such. Christianity teaches that Jesus was also G-d, the Son of the Holy Trinity.

Judaism teaches that the Messiah has not yet come, and that when he does, he will be an ordinary human being, not G-d.

These views will be reconciled when Christ comes again, whatever form that may take.

Then everyone will know the truth. Until then, one follows one’s heart, as one is guided by G-d.

 

[DavidPalm]

Bob, “Yanni”, I’ve read your postings and when I can carve out the time I’ll have a good deal to say to them. Just wanted to let you know I’m not ignoring you.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Church should not pursue conversion of Jews, pope says

“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” the pope writes. The historical duration of this “proper time,” Benedict says, cannot be calculated.

 

[YanniP]

Cornbread: Let’s be clear here. Are you telling us that you agree with that quote and that the Jews living and dying until the Second Coming are so blinded, and therefore condemned, that we should just let them be, and ignore all the scriptural and Magisterial calls to evangilize the world? The last generation of Jews who convert is simply good enough?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Cornbread: Let’s be clear here. Are you telling us that you agree with that quote and that the Jews living and dying until the Second Coming are so blinded, and therefore condemned, that we should just let them be, and ignore all the scriptural and Magisterial calls to evangilize the world? The last generation of Jews who convert is simply good enough?

I was just passing on what I thought was a relevant article written by someone who is generally regarded as a scholarly Catholic theologian. I think it’s important to view Benedict’s opinion in the context of a long history of Jewish “evangelism” that can reasonably be argued to have done more harm than good to all the parties involved.

 

[DavidPalm]

“Yanni” writes,
YanniP;9025746:

As for your question related to Mr. Sungenis, are you really taking the “But he’s doing something worse!” defense? We’re focusing on your problematic essays, Mr. Palm. You are the one taking theological positions and claiming they are Magisterial and taught by the Church, and we are exploring the correctness of your representations. I have seen nothing but charitable discussion from Mr.Sungenis. Please stay on topic.

“Please stay on topic.” Okay, as both you and Bob seem to be suffering from the same mark-ed amnesia, let’s refresh your memory about the actual topic of this thread, as opposed to what you and Bob want it to be about, “Yanni”.

What was the actual topic of this thread? “Was Jesus Also the Messiah for the Jews”. Hoxbar wanted to know if “Jesus was sent for the Gentiles and not for the Jews…us Gentiles needed a messiah not the Jews.” 18 comments followed, both for and against this serious error—this heresy.

And, of course, considering the fact that you and your friend Bob Sungenis consider this to be one of the most nefarious heresies the Church has faced, you jumped in immediately to oppose and denounce it, right?

Nah. Instead, you only jumped in after a CAF member legitimately cited our Lay Witness article to combat that heresy. And then what? You ignored the plain heresy right in front of your face—that Jesus was not the Messiah for the Jews—and instead only felt compelled to come out of the woodwork in order to warn people about how dangerous our article supposedly is, even though we’re both on the same side, in opposition to that heresy. Interesting priorities, don’t you think? And you completely misrepresented what we wrote in the process. As such, your admonition to “stay on topic” seems more than a little ironic and self-serving, don’t you think,“Yanni”?

And speaking of “ironic” and “self-serving”, you said that I am “the one taking theological positions and claiming they are Magisterial and taught by the Church.” Well, yes. And we’ve given more than ample evidence that we’re correct and you and your friend Bob are wrong. Conversely, neither you nor Bob have brought forward any magisterial evidence that you’re right and we’re wrong. And remember, we’re not out and about branding anyone a heretic for simply disagreeing with our understanding of the evidence. That’s what your friend Bob Sungenis is doing to Bishop Rhoades and us. And after being repeatedly challenged to support those charges from magisterial teaching?

Crickets.

Instead, we get more of Bob’s personal Scripture interpretations.

Continuing yet further on the “ironic” and “self-serving” theme, you also chided me for supposedly “taking the ‘But he’s doing something worse!’ defense.” But what did I ask you and why, “Yanni”? I pointed out that you seemed extremely concerned with our balance on these issues involving Jews. So I simply questioned whether your concerns themselves were balanced. I asked if you were concerned at all with the fact that Bob is currently promoting the work of David Duke - former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan; has publicly spread a lie about Jewish convert Roy Schoeman (and knows it is a lie, yet he refuses to retract and apologize for it–see here); has repeatedly slandered Bishop Rhoades; has made the kind of offensive and erroneous statements listed here; and right now has an entire website that appears to be a clearing house for Jewish conspiracy theories. I asked you if this represented the kind of balanced approach you think is an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And your response?

Crickets again.

That’s telling, “Yanni”. I can think of very few people who wouldn’t willingly distance themselves from this sort of outrageous behavior.

 

[DavidPalm]

So, why do all of these outrageous and offensive things Bob has said and done get a complete yawn from you, “Yanni”? I think that’s more than a bit odd. I also think it’s odd that you jumped in this thread only to take a cheap shot at an article written by Michael and me, repeating a totally skewed perspective that obviously came from Bob Sungenis. And when you got called on the carpet, most interestingly, Bob himself suddenly popped into the thread.

Now, I’ve known Bob for quite a number of years and he’s always been very reluctant to venture out from his home audience on the Internet. Instead, he typically lets his closest supporters do that for him. In fact, one of the only times I’ve seen him make a personal appearance was after a very close supporter—the president of his board of directors, in fact—had first entered the thread and started to need some help. Here’s what I’m talking about at the Discover Magazine blog:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-304846

blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-305190

blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#comment-316247

Well, I’m not a conspiracy theorist by nature, so I’m not going to jump to rash conclusions, especially in public. But, there is some other information that I’m sure you’ll agree is also oddly coincidental.

Over at the Catholics for Israel forum, there’s a poster with the screen name “truthseeker” who’s been making almost identical arguments to the ones you’re making here and at almost the same time, “Yanni.” I mean, some of them are almost word for word. And he even likes the same German theologians that you like – Heinisch and Heidt. That’s how I found those posts—way back when you first mentioned them, I did a Google search on Heinisch, Heidt, Jews and Covenant. See here.

And the other really interesting and coincidental thing about that screen name (truthseeker) is that it has commonly been used by the very same friend and board member I mentioned above who appeared on the Discover Magazine blog defending Bob Sungenis. In fact, he’s used that screen name right here at the CAF and at Wikipedia.

His name is Mark Wyatt, president of Bob’s board of directors (see here), member of the CAF forum writing under the name “trth_skr” (see here and here), and at Wikipedia using Truth_seeker and Truth_seeker_new:

Interestingly enough, Mark Wyatt is the same person who went to great lengths right here at the CAF—using the screen name truthseeker (trth_skr) —to help Bob Sungenis deceive people into thinking that Bob hadn’t been rejected by Bishop Rhoades for an imprimatur on CASB2 (see here).

But again, I’m sure this is all just completely coincidental.

Now, I’ve answered enough of your questions, as absurd as those have sometimes been. It’s your turn to answer some questions. So, once again, “Yanni” I ask you:

• Do you have any objection to your friend Bob Sungenis promoting a video about Jews by former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke?
• Do you have any objection to Bob continuing to publicly slander his Bishop with bogus charges of heresy when Bob has privately admitted that he knows he may well not be right?
• Do you have any objection to Bob spreading a lie about Jewish convert Roy Schoeman’s beliefs and not retracting and apologizing for it even though he knows it’s a lie? pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm
• Do you have any objection to Bob trying to convince people that Michael Forrest, Jared Olar, Jacob Michael and I may secretly be Jews who are hiding our identities? Do you have any objection to the stunt that Bob pulled, enlisting a young man - against his conscience - to try to “out” Jacob Michael as a Jew (see here)?
• Do you have any objection to any of the statements Bob has made about Jews, listed here?
• Do you have any problem with the fact that Bob has broken multiple promises to stop attacking Jews and to at least stick to theological issues involving them (see here)?
• Do you believe that the kind of material presented by Bob and the sources behind them represent the sort of balance you are seeking and are rightly viewed as an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

We’ll all look forward to your answers now, “Yanni”.

 

[DavidPalm]

**I apologize to the forum moderators in advance for the length of my response. I would prefer to simply post links to my website for the bulk of what follows, but Bob Sungenis has stated that he won’t read it there. So, as much as I think his refusal is unreasonable, I decided to try to accommodate him to a large degree, for the sake of getting to the bottom of some very important and complex matters. I appreciate your understanding and patience. **

---

Bob,

Let me make clear why I’m even discussing these particular issues in such detail with you. You’ve been making unjustified charges of heresy in public against us, but more seriously against Bishop Rhoades. I wanted to give you another opportunity to finally do the right thing by retracting and apologizing for these false accusations. Failing that good result, I at least want others to see for themselves what you’re willing do to a Catholic bishop and Catholic laymen like Roy Schoeman, Michael Forrest and me in your quest to condemn people for “heresy”. I also wanted to let everyone see for themselves that you are unable to back up your charges or support your private interpretations from the teaching of the Magisterium.

To use Bishop Rhoades’ words, your behavior continues to be “slanderous”, “uncharitable and un-Christian”.

These issues involving the relationship among Christians, Jews and God are very interesting and worth discussing in and of themselves, but I’m not going to allow you to take the attention off of the central issue underlying this whole matter: your completely unacceptable behavior with respect to Bishop Rhoades, Jews, and anyone who has criticized you about your dealings with them. If and when you retract and apologize for your multiple public slanders of Bishop Rhoades and finally honor your multiple broken promises to stop attacking Jews, then we would be more interested in and willing to continue to discuss these issues with you on a purely theological level.

But as matters stand right now, you have a great deal to answer for, Bob. And I’m going to press you hard for those answers after addressing a few of your points, below. But, unless you bring forward something really new and pertinent, then I’m not going to waste any more time dealing with these doctrinal points. It’s time for you to finally face up to the central issues here and stop tap dancing around them.

Below are four links to new material we’ve written in response to some of your latest, specific arguments. This was necessary to keep the length of my response within reason here on the CAF. If you refuse to read them, that’s up to you. But please don’t complain you haven’t been answered.

Have We “Changed Our Minds”? sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/answers-to-bob-from-the-catholic-answers-forum#HaveWeChanged – No. What’s actually happening is that you and “Yanni” are finally beginning to read our material for the first time and understand it a bit better.

Supersessionism…Yet Again sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/answers-to-bob-from-the-catholic-answers-forum#SupersessionismAgain – Neither sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church has ever used this word. Yet you deploy it as an absolute litmus test of Catholic orthodoxy - even against a successor of the Apostles.

Revoked…Yet Again sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/answers-to-bob-from-the-catholic-answers-forum#RevokedAgain – Neither sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church has ever used this word that you use as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy and insist is one of “the most important legal words related to the topic of the Old Covenant today.”

The Conversion of the Jews sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/answers-to-bob-from-the-catholic-answers-forum#ConversionOfTheJews – Your treatment of the future conversion of the Jews remains one of the clearest indications of your “theology of prejudice”. Here, I lay out additional examples of that. Most glaring is your treatment of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and also Catechism of the Catholic Church 674. The Catechism speaks of the “full inclusion” of the Jews into the Church after (post in Latin) the full number of the Gentiles. In the CCC this information is placed under the section dealing with what will occur leading up to the Second Coming. Everything else listed there is something that a person could perceive—Christ’s return itself, the “final trial” of the Church that will “shake the faith” of her members, and the coming of Antichrist. And the recognition of the Messiah by “all Israel” is right square in the middle of that section. According to your unusual interpretation of Romans 11, this really isn’t really that big of a deal. Very odd, then, that the Church found it important enough to include along with the Great Tribulation, the Great Apostasy, and the Antichrist as signs of the Second Coming. See more details here

 

[DavidPalm]

Faulty Foundation, Faulty Conclusions:

So what’s behind all of this? I believe the problem is that you’re beginning with unbalanced, faulty presuppositions. It is no wonder that you come to erroneous conclusions, which do not reflect what the Magisterium teaches.

I believe you have a fundamentally unbalanced and confused understanding of God’s relationship with Israel according to the flesh, the Jewish people. You have adopted what we’ve called a “theology of prejudice”, but upon further reflection it might also be called a “theology of punishment.” From this flows your private choice of a word that the Magisterium has never used: “revoked”. From this flows your denial that the Jewish people retain any special place in salvation history (unless it’s at the service of Satan, of course). From this flows your insistence that the Jews have no special ongoing relationship with God (again, unless it’s negative. For more, see Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Own Theology here). From this flows the great double standards you employ, latching onto any negative thing the Fathers or Scripture might say about Jews, while working desperately to explain away the instances in which Scripture, the Fathers, and the Magisterium affirm positive things about them. From this flow your extremely tendentious readings of Romans 11. From this flow all of the contortions you go through to try to divorce the Church as much as you can from its inherent Jewishness.

Let’s look at this more closely. More examples could be cited, but the following will suffice.

From your “Question 231”, you write:

Also, your insistence that the revoke or annulling of the Old Covenant had nothing to do with “rebuke” or “disownership” is incorrect. Whether we use “revoke,” “annul,” “set aside,” “take away,” “cancel” or any other similar term, the fact remains that the legal or covenantal commission that God had originally given to the Jewish nation was revoked, and in the process of the revocation, the Jews were, indeed, “rebuked” for their sins and they were also severed from “ownership” of the Mosaic law. No longer could the Jews have a relationship with God based on the Mosaic law, legally speaking. No longer would the Jews be the “chosen people” or “the people of the covenant” in opposition to everyone else in the world. As a national or ethnic entity, God, indeed, has “repudiated” the Jews. . . . *n regards to national or ethnic aspects, the Jews have, indeed, been rejected. God no longer deals with or has a relationship to the Jews based on their Jewishness or their national origin. God will only relate to the Jews as he relates to everyone else in the world – accept Jesus Christ for the salvation of your souls or perish.

And then the following, from your critique of our Lay Witness article:

R. Sungenis: The only way a Jew can become a member of the “Chosen People” today is if he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior…If he is unconverted, he is not of the “Chosen People.” In fact, a Jew, because he denies that Jesus Christ is the divine Savior, is consigned to hell by “divine choice.”

You sure can feel the love.

I submit that this is at the heart of your whole approach to the Jews. You believe that the replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant was a “rebuke” of Israel according to the flesh. The Jewish people, according to you, were “repudiated” by God and have no special relationship with God, as Jews and as a people. God only deals with Jews as individuals and their Jewishness is irrelevant now. That’s your position.

Now, everyone agrees that St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 11 is the key biblical text in this whole discussion. And as I will demonstrate, you’ve seriously misunderstood and misrepresented St. Paul, to the point of taking a position that is almost the exact opposite of what he teaches at points.*

 

[DavidPalm]

So, what has led to your faulty understanding of this passage of Scripture? As I said above, faulty foundations lead inevitably to faulty conclusions. Let’s look at what you have said about the context of Romans 11:

R. Sungenis: “The very reason Romans 11 was written is that, after God rejected and decimated the Jews in the first century, the question of whether any Jew could still be saved came to the fore, which is the very reason St. Paul opens the chapter with: ‘Has God forsaken the Jew?’” (The Latin Mass Fall 2005, p. 54; emphasis added.)

Now let’s unpack this. You state that the context of Romans 11 is when God “decimated the Jews in the first century”. You’ve repeated this claim in various forms several times. Here’s what you said in your commentary on Romans in the CASB series:

R. Sungenis: “Rm 11:24 must be interpreted within these specific parameters, but this is an easy task once one understands the context of Rm 11:1-4. As we noted earlier, the logical question one would ask after the Temple curtain was miraculously torn in two at the exact moment of Christ’s death on the cross (Mt 27:51), followed by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans, is: Do the Jews have any future with God at all? Can any of them be saved any longer? We saw above that the answer is “yes”, but it is a qualified “yes”, since only a remnant will be saved. The rest will remain in unbelief…” (CASB3, p. 437f.)

And elsewhere you state:

R. Sungenis: “After God abolished the Old Covenant in 33 AD and destroyed the Jews in 70 AD for their unbelief, a curious observer might ask: “Well, does that mean the Jews can no longer be saved?” The answer comes back, “No, God has not forsaken the Jews, for I Paul, a Jew from Benjamin, have been saved; and even in the OT God had a remnant of Jewish believers that he saved, even though most of the nation was in apostasy.” That is the context of Romans 11:1-8.” (CAI Answers Its Critics)

The obvious problem with this is that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 took place more than a decade after Romans was written and in fact at least three years after St. Paul was dead. Bob, how can an event that occurs after the death of the author serve as even a part of the context for what he wrote?

So, let’s be totally clear. There is no way that the context of a passage of Scripture can be formed by events that took place after it was written, indeed, after the author of that Scripture passage was dead. There’s no way around that. What you are teaching here is flatly and demonstrably false.

It’s not surprising, then, that you come to erroneous conclusions about the meaning of Romans 11 and take positions out of alignment with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, when your understanding of the context for that chapter is so skewed.

Now let’s look at just some of the exegetical mistakes that arise out of this fundamentally flawed understanding of the context of Romans 11. I’m only going to look at a few here—many more are documented in Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis.

The place where your fundamentally flawed approach to Romans 11 really comes to the fore is in your treatment of the olive tree in vv. 17-24. First, you have previously gone to great lengths to deny that the “olive tree” of which St. Paul speaks is Israel. You’ve claimed that the olive tree is Christ and that “this was also the constant teaching of the Fathers” (CASB2, p. 149), going so far as to publicly castigate Jewish converts for saying that the olive tree was Israel. Of course, you seem to have forgotten that Jesus is a Jew. He is the Israelite par excellence, the representative head of Israel. So, even if you were correct, to be grafted into Christ is still to be grafted into Israel.

And although you offered a few citations from the Fathers as a “representative sample” of your claim, it turns out that you missed in the very same context of those citations where those Fathers made it quite clear that they saw Israel as the Olive Tree. Even though this was pointed out to you by both Ben Douglass and Michael Forrest, you went to print with these errors in your CASB2 volume (the book that was denied an imprimatur by Bishop Rhoades, by the way). See complete documentation in “The Theology of Prejudice: The Olive Tree or ‘Root’ of Romans 11”.

 

[DavidPalm]

The Olive Tree

St. Paul’s treatment of the metaphor of the olive tree contains the most obvious evidence that you have misread Romans 11.

Notice that in vv. 16-24 he speaks of the Jews who were broken off ἐξεκλάσθησαν]; thus he cannot be talking of those Jews who follow Jesus. They are indeed presented as branches broken off from the cultivated olive tree, as St. Paul says, and the wild branches, the Gentiles were then grafted in:

For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Notice that according to St. Paul, the Jewish people who do not believe in Christ as a whole remain the “natural branches” (τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων, literally “the branches according to nature”; Rom 11:21) and the olive tree is spoken of as “their own” τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ], even in their separated state (Rom 11:24).

The Gentiles, the “wild olive shoots”, are grafted on to their own tree - the Jews’ tree. And precisely because the olive tree remains the Jews’ “own”, this grafting of the Gentiles is done “contrary to nature” παρὰ φύσιν]. And it is also precisely why St. Paul states that Jews can more easily be grafted back in (v. 24). This runs contrary to what you have said in response to our article:

R. Sungenis: Hence, if anything, what Forrest, Palm and the National Catholic Register should be teaching is, according to 1 Peter 2:9-10, that it is mainly the Christian Gentiles who are the Chosen People and that Jewish converts can join with them, but certainly not teach that unconverted Jews are the Chosen People simply because they are Jews.

“Jewish converts can join with them”? First, it bears repeating that we have never said that Jews are “the Chosen People”, as if Israel according to the flesh is still God’s official representative on earth. That distinction now belongs solely to the Church, the New Israel (which is composed of both baptized Jews and baptized Gentiles). But by taking St. Peter’s epistle to mean that “Jewish converts can join with [the Gentiles]”, it appears you’re trying to invert St. Paul’s message in Romans 11. Again, St. Paul, writing after the giving of the New Covenant, makes it clear that it is the Gentiles, the “wild olive shoots”, who are grafted “contrary to nature” into the Jews’ tree. Jews who convert and accept their messiah are rejoining “their own olive tree.” While it is true that the tree is now mostly composed of adopted or “grafted in” Gentiles, Jews who convert are not therefore somehow transformed into the wild branches joining a Gentile tree. St. Paul teaches that the Jews remain the “natural branches” even in their separated state. Again, this is precisely why St. Paul says that they can be grafted in more easily than the Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:24).

And the Apostle specifically warns Gentiles like you, “do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you…So do not become proud, but stand in awe. . . Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Rom 11:18, 20, 22).

We have already examined how your interpretation of Rom 11:26 runs contrary to literally dozens of Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And we have seen how your interpretation of Rom 11:28-29 runs contrary to how the Magisterium of the Church consistently applies those verses to the Jews of today who have not yet accepted Christ.

You break Rom 11:28 into two entirely different groups of people:

R. Sungenis: “As such, since verses 4-5 explain the “election” as the remnant of Jews who believed out of a nation that was largely in unbelief, so it is with the “election” in verse 28. There are Jews that are “enemies of the gospel” but there is a smaller group of “elect” Jews who are “beloved of God.”” (p. 18)

And in post #53 you wrote,

If the “divine choice” refers to the elect Jews that are separated from non-elect Jews (as St. Paul clearly teaches in Roman 9:6 and 11:5-11) then you simply have no basis reading into Romans 11:28 that “the election” refers to all Jews.

I have already pointed out the exegetical difficulties of that approach here). But more importantly, as I have shown in this forum, the Magisterium has repeatedly spoken of Jews who have not yet received the Gospel as “beloved” and has cited Rom 11:28 as biblical support for this.

And in fact there is one other pertinent person in this discussion who has admitted that the Jews at large are “beloved” according to Rom 11:28, namely, you:

You claim that I say “Rom 11:28 that you say only applies to Jews who have accepted Christ.” No I don’t. I said that the Jews, at large, are “beloved,” but only because they are given a chance to become saved, to become “the elect.”

The problem for you, of course, is that the very same group that is called “beloved for the sake of the fathers” is said to be so “according to the election”. The election and being beloved have to apply to the same group. So you not only contradict the Magisterium, you contradict yourself as well.

 

[DavidPalm]

The New Covenant Not a Punishment

Your one quibble that had some substance may be easily addressed. You said,

By the way, all the quotes you have cited from Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI are unofficial and therefore merely his opinion…So I don’t consider him an authority on the issue unless he wants to speak officially.

Then how about the following? This is from the Holy Father’s Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini:

we now naturally turn to the special bond which that relationship has engendered between Christians and Jews, a bond that must never be overlooked. Pope John Paul II, speaking to Jews, called them “our ‘beloved brothers’ in the faith of Abraham, our Patriarch”. To acknowledge this fact is in no way to disregard the instances of discontinuity which the New Testament asserts with regard to the institutions of the Old Testament, much less the fulfilment of the Scriptures in the mystery of Jesus Christ, acknowledged as Messiah and Son of God. All the same, this profound and radical difference by no means implies mutual hostility. The example of Saint Paul (cf. Rom 9-11) shows on the contrary that “an attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude in the present situation, which is a mysterious part of God’s wholly positive plan”. Indeed, Saint Paul says of the Jews that: “as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable!” (Rom 11:28-29).

Sorry Bob. It remains absolutely clear that the Magisterium has repeatedly applied Romans 11:28-29 to unbaptized Jews, as a whole, and does not partition it out like you do.

I would point out that this exhortation from the Holy Father is also interesting because he refers to unconverted Jews as “our beloved brothers”. Yet, in your critique of our article “All in the Family”, you were disturbed that we referred to the Jewish people as family. We’ve provided multiple other instances where the Church has referred to the Jewish people in familial terms as well (sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151550). But in your view, the Jewish people are not family in any sense. You teach that “the Jews are godless” and when one looks at your theology and the dozens of postings attacking Jews, it seems sadly obvious why you’re disturbed when the Jewish people are described as “family”.

And we see a similar phenomenon with your insistence on the word “revoked” and your not-so-subtle insistence that the cessation of the Old Covenant and arrival of the New Covenant was a punishment against the Jews.

I would argue that that understanding is seriously flawed. God intended from the beginning to establish the New Covenant in Christ. And the reason is that the Old Covenant could not save. It never had the power to do so. The wayward hearts of the Jewish people could not be changed by the Old Law and in order to save them and everybody God had to supersede that Old Covenant, which could not save, with the New Covenant which could.

The New Covenant was given first to the Jewish people and only later were the Gentiles included. The Kingdom of God–the New Israel–was entrusted by the Jewish Mashiach to twelve Jews, with a Jew named Kepha leading the way, and a Jewess by the name of Miriam as spiritual Mother and Mediatrix. These Jews and their followers regularly received the flesh and blood of the Jewish God-man–including the Gentiles (the wild olive shoots) who were eventually grafted onto that cultivated olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17, 24). This hardly represents a punishment and repudiation of the Jewish people, Bob.

This dynamic (regarding the reason the Mosaic covenant was replaced) is seen clearly in Heb 8:7-12. Certainly, they have a “fault” — the people were wayward and were stuck in their sins. But there was a fault too with the Old Covenant—it could not save them. The replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant in Christ is not a punishment of the Jewish people. It is rather an act of God’s mercy and love toward them:

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

Now certainly punishment came, as you will be quick to point out from any number of verses in the New Testament. But notice that, again, the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant was not itself that punishment. The breaking off of the natural branches came after the giving of the New Covenant and the great judgment of Israel in the destruction of the Temple came forty years after, as a result of their rejection of the Messiah.

 

[DavidPalm]

Is this to say that in their cut-off state—whether it’s Israel collectively or individual Jews—that they are immune from criticism or that they don’t do bad things? Not at all. Obviously Jews sin, because they have Original Sin like the rest of us. Jews can be criticized when those criticisms are just, just like all men (although it is a violation of the Golden Rule to broad-brush them as you so often do, Bob.) And indeed we have openly stated, for example, that we tend to agree that it makes sense from Scripture and from the logic of salvation history that the Messiah comes from the Jews and that the Antichrist may come from the Jews. What is called for here is the balance of the teaching of the Church. You rush to find everything you possibly can that’s bad, but you ignore and oppose that which is good.

And we’re not saying and have never said that Israel according to the flesh will somehow be restored over us. No, they will be grafted back into their own tree alongside us. You seem to perceive this odd “us vs. them” dynamic that doesn’t exist. Either the Gentiles are on top or the Jews are on top for you. It’s not like that. Unbaptized Jews are most certainly in a seriously disadvantaged situation as a people now, but by God’s grace they will be restored to a position alongside us in the New Covenant in Christ.

Now, in fairness, one question remains: that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first: your theological errors about the Jewish people, or your animus against them? Did your flawed theology lead to your animus? Or did your animus inspire your flawed theology?

This question we can’t answer. But the prejudice is clearly evident, in your private treatment of biblical texts, in your manhandling of the Fathers, in your treatment of Jews, in your treatment of Jewish converts, in your treatment of anyone who comes to the defense of those you malign, and in your treatment even of your own bishop.

So here’s the deal, Bob. Neither Michael nor I care if you disagree with our presentation of the Church’s teaching in these areas. Catholics of good will can and do disagree with one another. But we do care when you start throwing around irresponsible and unjustified charges of heresy—especially when it’s against a successor to the Apostles: Bishop Rhoades.

The thing is, you haven’t supported your charges at all. I’ve asked you repeatedly to show us the magisterial statements that we deny or contradict and you haven’t even made an effort to do so. The same is true of your charges against Bishop Rhoades. I think you know very well that you’ve completely violated your own publicly stated standards sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/sungenis-standards-of-heresy. And I know you well enough to know that if you had the evidence, you would have brought it forward a long time ago. So it’s time to publicly retract and apologize for these false charges against Bishop Rhoades and us.

In regard to Bishop Rhoades, it’s also past time to publish the letters you received from His Excellency (29 June 2007) and Fr. King (23 Aug. 2007), in their entirety. It’s unacceptable to leak whatever selective sentences you think will help you. And it’s time to stop giving us your personal version of what’s in them. I’m publicly challenging you again, Bob: bring forth the letters. The longer you keep refusing to bring these letters forward in their entirety, the more obvious it becomes that you’re hiding information that doesn’t comport with your public story. And I would like to remind you that you recently indicated to me in an e-mail that you believe you were likely wrong about Bishop Rhoades being a dual covenant proponent. And yet you’ve just re-posted an old article that accuses him of this very thing and posted a new article that repeats those slanderous claims. Why would you do this, Bob?